Monday, May 11, 2009

Who is more likely to be a socialist: a Jew or an atheist? The General Social Survey asks people where they fall on a political scale from extremely conservative to extremely liberal. Maybe I'm stretching it, but extreme liberals could be characterized as socialist in a loose sense. Here are the percentages who are "socialist" by religion:

Percent socialist (N = 11,511)

Atheists 14.3Hindus 9.1Jews 8.9Buddhists 8.0

All Americans 3.5

Catholics 2.5Protestants 2.5Muslims 0.0

No question--atheists are easily in first place. I'm not surprised by the Hindu and Buddhist numbers. Just yesterday, I watched the Dalai Lama say on Zakaria's program that he is a socialist. The Dalai Lama! A socialist! (This shows why you shouldn't choose your leader when he's four years old--you can't tell if he's stupid). And look at how Muslims are on the bottom of the list.

These numbers suggest to a conservative that immigration from countries with high numbers of atheists, Hindus, Buddhists, and Jews should be discouraged. These tend to be wealthy groups, and the last thing we need are more influential socialists screwing up the country.

I looked to see if there are any immigrants who are disproportionately conservative. Protestants are the only group.

47 comments:

Anonymous
said...

The only major clash between American Muslims and Conservatives is U.S.-Israel relations. Remove that political rigmarole out of the equation, and Muslims (at least moderate ones) and Conservatives have a lot to talk about.

Muslims and socialists agree 100% on the main things of interest to Muslims, i.e.- whether Western civilization is worth anything- whether mass immigration from Muslim countries should be allowed- whether Muslims who choose not to work and not to assimilate should be put on the dole, supported by taxpaying natives- whether the only important thing to be learned from history is that Anglo/European people are oppressive, dishonest, and selfish- whether criticism of Muslims is permitted- whether Islam is ever a factor in certain types of street crime, e.g. the gang-beatings of girls in European cities who don't obey Islamic laws regarding women's clothing.

In Israel as well as in Europe, the main allies of organized Islam are socialists and communists. The only socialist (in this case, Social Democratic) party I've ever seen take a stand against the imposition of Sharia on Europe is the Danish Social Democratic Party.

Muslims didn't pick the "extreme liberal" category because they're not even moderately liberal. Were the category opposite to conservative described as "socialist", they might not pick that either, since socialists tend to support aid to infidels, dhimmis, etc.

A good example of a liberal Jew who is opposed to the Muslim-socialist axis is Ilana Mercer. (Technically she may also fit into the atheist category but I don't know her religious beliefs too well.) You may also include Diana West, Melanie Phillips, and sundry others, though not all of them openly identify as "liberal" since so many people (including me sometimes, I'm sad to say) use it to mean "leftist". In fact over half of the major critics (i.e. the ones I've heard of) of socialism-thru-Islamization are Jewish.

50% of american buddhists are white (mostly converts). many of them are ethnically jewish. so i don't really think that the liberalism of buddhists is a function of buddhism, but the sort of white person who converts to buddhism.

It's just a label. "Socialist" doesn't mean to people who accept that label upon themselves what you mean when you use it.

Just look at Blode's comment. It's completely idiotic, because not one item on his list has the first thing to do with socialism. "Socialist" is just the current word for "person the American right doesn't like," to paraphrase Orwell. ("The word FASCISM has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies 'something not desirable.'")

"Socialist" doesn't mean to people who accept that label upon themselves what you mean when you use it. - Jewish Atheist

Well, if you're not one of them, I'm not sure how you know exactly what it means to them.

But if it's the definition of socialism that counts, rather than the party labels of people working to keep immigration and welfare laws from being reformed, and to punish those who criticize Islam ... then I suppose Bush isn't really a conservative. Because though some may call him a conservative, I as a conservative can tell you it doesn't mean to us what it means to you (which apparently is military intervention, affirmative action, massed immigration, high spending ... basically all things Robert Taft couldn't stand.)

... not one item on his list has the first thing to do with socialism.One of the items on my list was: "whether Muslims who choose not to work and not to assimilate should be put on the dole, supported by taxpaying natives". Are you saying that nowhere in Europe do unemployment compensation laws encourage people not to work? I mean laws that provide subsidies to people who don't have jobs, but the same laws bars people who have jobs from receiving the subsidy? Or are you saying the socialists had nothing - not the first thing - to do with passing these laws? Or are you saying that choosing not to get a job and choosing not to assimilate are not related?

There are some interesting flags here held by those who oppose Pro-Köln. The Turkish version of the hammer & sickle apparently superimposes a rifle on the sickle.

This is probably the single best page on socialist attitudes about immigration. Of course, given that the page strongly implies they are in favor of intervening to "stop the slaughter of Tamils", I guess under some people's definition, this is a conservative party. (Cute pictures of Engels and Marx at the top of the page!)

Two apologies: one for not making my links all run together two posts ago (the no-line-breaks-after-tags thing is hard to get used to), and two for not mentioning that the Dutch Socialist Party is unusual among the European center-left for proposing reduced immigration.

To be clear about my own view: I believe conservatives should reduce immigration from countries who 1st- and 2nd-generation immigrants have the highest crime rats. The ideologies of immigrant groups only matter insomuch as they encourage crime, poor family planning, agitation for theocracy, etc. I'd much rather live next to a bunch of members of the Japan Socialist Party than of the Saudi royal family.

Whether immigration should be allowed or not has nothing to do with socialism. Whether non-citizens should be treated the same as citizens also has nothing to do with socialism. Even whether citizens who choose not to work should nevertheless receive benefits has nothing to do with socialism.

Your argument is preposterous. "Well, socialists [among others] supported policy X and policy X is tangentially related to current policy Y, and evil Muslims agree with current policy Y, therefore socialists agree with those who agree with current policy Y!"

Even if that convoluted chain is true, who gives a shit? If the Nazis supported precise timetables for trains and Democrats support precise timetables for trains, is it useful to point out that ZOMG! Democrats support the same policy that Nazis did!!?

You're just using the word "socialist" as a weapon. It's got nothing to do with what you're complaining about.

Anyway, as I've pointed out in previous threads, Muslims have a lot more in common with the religious right than with the secular left. The only difference is that they are more extreme about it and the God they want to shove down everybody else's throat is a different God.

You're just using the word "socialist" as a weapon. It's got nothing to do with what you're complaining about.I provided two semantic decision rules - each internally consistent but different from each other. Under one rule, you admit that George W. Bush isn't a conservative and you get to have open-border Islam-shills kicked out of socialism. Under another, conservatives get tarred with Iraq, socialists get tarred with twisting the commonly-taught picture of history so as to absolve Islam of the deeds of everyone from Al-Walid I to Hayreddin Barbarossa, and both sides get tarred with mass immigration.

Anyway, as I've pointed out in previous threads, Muslims have a lot more in common with the religious right than with the secular left.And I responded to you point by point. I seem to recall that I provided much more detail than you, which reminds me of ... this thread. (I don't know why we're so sure that the Christians and Muslims have a different god. If they have the same Moses, why a different god? I'm no theologian.)

In any case, I take it as a good sign that you want to distance yourself from Islamization. I hope more Jews, atheists, liberals, etc., realize dhimmitude will hurt (or destroy) them, and sooner, rather than later.

Jews and people with higher IQs answer economic questions more like economists do. I'd bet you atheists answer economic questions more like economists as well. I'd also bet you they vote more like economists.

"Muslims have a lot more in common with the religious right than with the secular left."

Sane Muslims have a lot more in common with the religious right. Insane Muslims have a lot more in common with the secular left. Russell Kirk is not on Osama bin Laden's Recommended Reading List. William Blum is.

Under one rule, you admit that George W. Bush isn't a conservative and you get to have open-border Islam-shills kicked out of socialism.Well of course Bush isn't a "conservative" by any reasonable definition of the word.

And I responded to you point by point. I seem to recall that I provided much more detail than you, which reminds me of ... this thread. (I don't know why we're so sure that the Christians and Muslims have a different god. If they have the same Moses, why a different god? I'm no theologian.)Same God, different God, no difference with respect to this discussion. And Muslims are clearly "conservatives" (at least socially) by any reasonable definition of "conservative."

In any case, I take it as a good sign that you want to distance yourself from Islamization. I hope more Jews, atheists, liberals, etc., realize dhimmitude will hurt (or destroy) them, and sooner, rather than later.I think this idea that the left is in bed with the Muslims is a fantasy of the right's that has little basis in reality. Yes, the international left largely supports Palestine, but it's not because Palestinians are Muslims, it's because 1) they are the underdogs and 2) Israel's done some bad shit. (So have Palestinians, obviously, but bad shit with cluster bombs seems worse to many than bad shit with homemade bomb vests. Not saying it should be that way.)

But look at the Democrats in power. They couldn't be more "pro-Israel" if they tried. (And they do.)

And when the left opposes torture or the Iraq war or even the Afghanistan war, it's not because we're pro-Islam, it's because we're against torture and pointless wars. Ditto racial profiling, discrimination, etc.

You think liberals agree with Muslims on gays? The role of women? Prayer in schools? Church/Mosque and state? What exactly is our supposed commonality?

2) Just because Osama bin Ladin recommends a liberal's critique of the U.S. government doesn't make OBL a liberal. That's just idiotic.

If the police gang-rape a convicted felon and the ACLU criticizes them for it, and then the felon tells people to read the ACLU press briefings, it doesn't mean that the felon is a liberal or a civil libertarian. It just means the ACLU calls out wrongdoing regardless of the victim.

1. These attitudes about immigration etc. have little intrinsically to do with socialism, but they are in practice believed firmly by socialists today.

Why this is the case is a complicated question, maybe having to do with socialist core views about equality. I don’t know. But the people who call Blode032 idiot for pointing out something obvious to anyone who knows anything about modern politics are idiots themselves.

2. Muslims tend to hate America, and believe in Noam Chomsky-type theories that US is historically the cause of much of worlds problems, and that they are currently an oppressive society. They also have extreme self-serving bias, and are quite prone to grievance mongering.

According to Pew only 40% of Americans Muslims believe that 9/11 was caused by Muslims. 15% of young American Muslims admit to supporting terrorism.Obviously Muslims support mass immigration, even if they dislike other minorities. If you are an immigrant and opposed to the dominant culture a fragmented society seems to be preferred.

And Muslims are clearly "conservatives" (at least socially) by any reasonable definition of "conservative."You're right ... but the culture they're conserving is nothing like Western culture. Hitherto I have been using "conservative" to mean "Burkean conservative" or "European-style center-rightist".

You think liberals agree with Muslims on gays? The role of women? Prayer in schools? Church/Mosque and state?Muslims disagree with many of the central tenets of liberalism. I figured this was self-evident so I didn't mention it in my first post.

One point where liberals and Islamists agree, and Christians and conservatives are on the other side: easy divorce. Muslims and liberals also seem more likely to support plural marriage, although I don't know many liberals like this, just a smattering of ultra-counterculture types.

As to school prayer, it depends on which proposal. If a statewide voting majority decides on the prayers, in the countries I'm talking about those will be Christian prayers, and the Muslims and secularists will be on the same side (in opposition, as will a lot of Jeffersonian-type Christians). If local majorities decide, the the Muslims and secularists will be on opposite sides in some European cases. Ditto, I assume, for the possibility of school vouchers going to religious schools in America.

What exactly is our supposed commonality? - Jewish Atheist

I don't believe traditional liberals have much commonality with Islamism, but a lot of left-liberals are much less interested in liberalism than they are in multicult socialism. In that case the commonality is outlined in my first post, above.

One of my contentions is that any ideology with multicult mixed in will bear little resemblance to the other ideology. Multicult is much stronger and simpler than any other ideology, since every dispute is decided according its victimhood heirarchy (and PC doesn't have much opinion on anything else, like wealth creation). That is why European labor parties place a much lower priority on European labor than on Muslim immigrants.

Another contention is that the media are more powerful than political parties, and that they have a good handle on cancelling their own biases as regards all the traditional ideologies. So the reporters who profess communism (a horrible but fading ideology), socialism (a theoretically dangerous but usually manageable ideology), liberalism (a very mixed bag), and conservatism (two thumbs up!) can usually report honestly in spite of their easily-recognized biases. The exception is the most powerful ideology of, multicult. Reporters never balance their multicultism because they're convinced it's not a bias, even if it causes them to call everybody and his brother a "racist" in any debate on the stuff that matters (immigration, reverse discrim, languages and literacy, etc.)

As far as Bush goes, I brought that point up because I thought I remembered you somewhere saying "conservatives can't disavow Bush!" or something along those lines. I am pretty sure I was mistaken and have either gotten what you said wrong, or mixed you up with someone else.

It is not that Laden is a Lefty. It is that radical leftists and radical Islamists both share the same radical antipathy toward a common enemy: the West.I'm glad you said "radical leftists" at least. But criticism of the U.S. government should not be confused with an antipathy towards the U.S., let alone towards "the West." If critics of the U.S. and Muslims appear to be on the same page sometimes, it's only because the U.S. recently attacked two Muslim countries. (And because we have supported dictators in the Muslim world, etc.)

These attitudes about immigration etc. have little intrinsically to do with socialism, but they are in practice believed firmly by socialists today.

Okay, that could be. But of what relevance is it? Republicans and the KKK probably agree on gay marriage. So what?

As for Muslims, I'm certainly not here to argue that they're wonderful. (They aren't a monolithic group of course, and many American Muslims aren't even religious, but that's a different story.)

Blode:

You're right ... but the culture they're conserving is nothing like Western culture.

Clearly there are major differences, but there are a lot of the same themes: the importance of religion, the role of women, marriage being between a man and a woman, etc. I don't see why you think it's more significant that socialists happen to agree with Muslims on some issues but not that the Christian right and the Muslim right are different more quantitatively than qualitatively.

Muslims disagree with many of the central tenets of liberalism. I figured this was self-evident so I didn't mention it in my first post.

Okay, good. Maybe I'm knee-jerking because of how so many have tried to equate liberals with being anti-America, etc. (Meanwhile Texas Republicans get a pass for openly talking about secession for some reason.)

One point where liberals and Islamists agree, and Christians and conservatives are on the other side: easy divorce.Could be. Traditional Christianity's the odd man out on that one. Judaism and Islam are okay with divorce (when necessary.)

Muslims and liberals also seem more likely to support plural marriage, although I don't know many liberals like this, just a smattering of ultra-counterculture types.

I think any similarity there is cosmetic only. I can't think of any liberals who would support polygamy but not polyandry.

To find polygyny-only non-Muslim Americans, you'd have to turn to the fLDSers, who belong to the right end of the spectrum.

As to school prayer, it depends on which proposal. If a statewide voting majority decides on the prayers, in the countries I'm talking about those will be Christian prayers, and the Muslims and secularists will be on the same side (in opposition, as will a lot of Jeffersonian-type Christians). If local majorities decide, the the Muslims and secularists will be on opposite sides in some European cases. Ditto, I assume, for the possibility of school vouchers going to religious schools in America.

I don't believe traditional liberals have much commonality with Islamism, but a lot of left-liberals are much less interested in liberalism than they are in multicult socialism. In that case the commonality is outlined in my first post, above.

See I just don't get the use of the word "socialism" there. Socialism is an economic system, right? Multiculturism is a social stance. Maybe they tend to go together, maybe they don't, but I don't see why you keep throwing around the S-word when it's not relevant.

One of my contentions is that any ideology with multicult mixed in will bear little resemblance to the other ideology. Multicult is much stronger and simpler than any other ideology, since every dispute is decided according its victimhood heirarchy (and PC doesn't have much opinion on anything else, like wealth creation). That is why European labor parties place a much lower priority on European labor than on Muslim immigrants.

That's quite a straw man you've got there. Multiculturalism is just the belief that various cultures can make various contributions and that we can all learn to live together. It's kind of essential when you have a diverse society.

Another contention is that the media are more powerful than political parties, and that they have a good handle on cancelling their own biases as regards all the traditional ideologies. So the reporters who profess communism (a horrible but fading ideology), socialism (a theoretically dangerous but usually manageable ideology), liberalism (a very mixed bag), and conservatism (two thumbs up!) can usually report honestly in spite of their easily-recognized biases. The exception is the most powerful ideology of, multicult. Reporters never balance their multicultism because they're convinced it's not a bias, even if it causes them to call everybody and his brother a "racist" in any debate on the stuff that matters (immigration, reverse discrim, languages and literacy, etc.)

I agree that the media tend to have a non-racist, pro-diversity "bias." I even agree that's not necessarily a great thing. (How many other liberals do you know who link to Steve Sailer?)

But don't kid yourself about that being their only bias. There's a pro-capitalist bias, for example. A pro-corporatist bias. A pro-American bias. A pro-military bias. A pro-establishment bias. A pro-religion bias. A pro-sensationalism bias. A pro-consumerism bias. A pro-attractiveness bias. Etc.

As far as Bush goes, I brought that point up because I thought I remembered you somewhere saying "conservatives can't disavow Bush!" or something along those lines. I am pretty sure I was mistaken and have either gotten what you said wrong, or mixed you up with someone else.I may have said that the American "conservative" movement (who aren't really conservative) cannot disavow Bush, because he's really not that different from their icon, Ronald Reagan. Reagan was also a deficit spender. Reagan also helped the Christian right get a foothold in government. Reagan also thought he was above the law when it came to foreign policy.

Note that it made essentially zero difference to Bush's base that he was fiscally reckless AND engaged in nation building. The "conservative" base is not conservative at all, but Bush completely belongs to them. They (and the Republican party) cannot disavow him.

I don't see why you think it's more significant that socialists happen to agree with Muslims on some issues but not that the Christian right and the Muslim right are different more quantitatively than qualitatively.When socialists win elections (with the usual exceptions of the Netherlands and Denmark), the Muslims are empowered. And when people graduate from leftist J-schools and start covering political rallies, that is doubly true.

Traditional Christianity's the odd man out on that one. Judaism and Islam are okay with divorce (when necessary.)Not to nitpick, but I think it's Islam that's odd. I don't think a Jewish man can just say "I divorce you" thrice and have it done, even traditionally, but I'm no expert.

To find polygyny-only non-Muslim Americans, you'd have to turn to the fLDSers, who belong to the right end of the spectrum.They remind me of Muslims more than anything else. Right-wingers aren't supposed to support welfare for women who keep getting pregnant out of wedlock, yet that is exactly what keeps the FLDS communities flush with money.

See I just don't get the use of the word "socialism" there. Socialism is an economic system, right? Multiculturism is a social stance. Maybe they tend to go together, maybe they don't, but I don't see why you keep throwing around the S-word when it's not relevant.I don't believe multicult works without socialism. The pre-multicult options for minority groups (religious, racial, whatever) were: assimilate or go Amish. That seems like a nice, fair, rounded set of options. The Amish don't agitate for welfare or more Amish made professors of High-Tech Studies. It wouldn't make sense, because they have a realistic sense of themselves as a community.

Does socialism encourage communities to see themselves realistically? Not when it structures rewards the way it does.

That's quite a straw man you've got there.

Oh, I guess I made implied someone had taken a preposterous opinion, by outlining the latter? I'm not sure what you mean specifically.

Multiculturalism is just the belief that various cultures can make various contributions and that we can all learn to live together. It's kind of essential when you have a diverse society.I believe that is supposed to be called "pluralism". (This is probably another semantic impasse.) It predates modern leftism by at least a century (e.g. the Austro-Hungarian Empire).

Multiculturalism is complicated, and it is probably best defined by Hesperado. For purposes of this post, let me borrow your structure:Multiculturalism is the belief that various cultures have historically made equal contributions and that we can all learn to live together if those cultures who falsely claim to have made more stop making this claim. It's essential when you are constantly making society more diverse.

But don't kid yourself about that being their only bias.Of course it's not their only bias, but the media are plural. I don't believe there is any monolith of pro-capitalist media or pro-military media. Certainly not pro-religion. Different media sources have different (traditional) ideologies, which they are taught to be aware of in trying to make better article. But to be mainstream they all have to have the multicult bias. So the multicult right and multicult left all play nice and recognize their left-right biases, etc.

Forbes is much fairer to tax-raisers than FrontLine is to Lawrence Auster. Mother Jones is fairer to fiscal conservatives than they would be if the covered Robert Lindsay. Agree or disagree?

When socialists win elections (with the usual exceptions of the Netherlands and Denmark), the Muslims are empowered. And when people graduate from leftist J-schools and start covering political rallies, that is doubly true.

Look, I'm not trying to defend the socialists. I'm defending the things that I thought you were trying to smear by saying that socialists supported them.

Not to nitpick, but I think it's Islam that's odd. I don't think a Jewish man can just say "I divorce you" thrice and have it done, even traditionally, but I'm no expert.

Having gone through years and years of Orthodox Jewish schooling, I sort of *am* an expert, and I assure you, it's literally as simple as the man writing a divorce decree on a piece of paper and giving it to her, with or without her consent. (She of course cannot do the same. If she wants a divorce she has to convince or coerce him to grant her one.)

They remind me of Muslims more than anything else. Right-wingers aren't supposed to support welfare for women who keep getting pregnant out of wedlock, yet that is exactly what keeps the FLDS communities flush with money.

Some Ultra-Orthodox Jews do that too. Just because you say right-wingers "aren't supposed" to do something doesn't mean they don't do it. You think Republicans refuse to accept social security checks?

I don't believe multicult works without socialism. The pre-multicult options for minority groups (religious, racial, whatever) were: assimilate or go Amish. That seems like a nice, fair, rounded set of options. The Amish don't agitate for welfare or more Amish made professors of High-Tech Studies. It wouldn't make sense, because they have a realistic sense of themselves as a community.

I don't see how the rest of the paragraph explains (let alone proves) the first sentence. It seems to me that forcing people to assimilate has more in common with socialism (in practice) than accepting and/or celebrating differences does. Isn't multicult (as you call it) a fundamentally libertarian idea?

Does socialism encourage communities to see themselves realistically? Not when it structures rewards the way it does.Well sure. Socialism doesn't work because of the reward structure, I agree with that.

Oh, I guess I made implied someone had taken a preposterous opinion, by outlining the latter? I'm not sure what you mean specifically.

I was referring to your line "every dispute is decided according its victimhood heirarchy." That's a clear straw man.

I believe that is supposed to be called "pluralism". (This is probably another semantic impasse.) It predates modern leftism by at least a century (e.g. the Austro-Hungarian Empire).

Yes, I would say that multiculturalism is a subset of pluralism.

Multiculturalism is the belief that various cultures have historically made equal contributions and that we can all learn to live together if those cultures who falsely claim to have made more stop making this claim. It's essential when you are constantly making society more diverse.

LOL, but that's ridiculous. Who says that various cultures have historically made equal contributions? This is another straw man.

Of course it's not their only bias, but the media are plural. I don't believe there is any monolith of pro-capitalist media or pro-military media.

All of the big network and cable news networks and all of the major papers are pro-capitalist and pro-military.

Certainly not pro-religion.

Yeah right. Here's an exercise: compare and contrast the way the media talk about religious believers with how they talk about UFO believers. Or how they fawn over the pope.

Different media sources have different (traditional) ideologies, which they are taught to be aware of in trying to make better article. But to be mainstream they all have to have the multicult bias. So the multicult right and multicult left all play nice and recognize their left-right biases, etc.

Yes, I agreed they all have to be multicult to play. But they also have to be pro-corporate (show me a major media outlet that questions the idea of corporations or even seriously questions the enormous international conglomerates that own them.) Obviously they have to be pro-American. They probably have to be pro-military (show me one who doesn't display treacly "support our troops" messages regularly.) Etc.

Forbes is much fairer to tax-raisers than FrontLine is to Lawrence Auster. Mother Jones is fairer to fiscal conservatives than they would be if the covered Robert Lindsay. Agree or disagree?Agree. You've identified the establishment or "mainstream" bias.

Actually this last bias has the effect of tilting the media rightward, based on who and what are considered "mainstream." Pat Buchannan gets to be a regular guest, but you'll virtually never see Noam Chomsky. Why is that? In the run-up to the Iraq war, pro-war voices were featured prominently, while anti-war voices were not featured at all or were characterized as "far left."

Sunday morning news shows typically have 2 right-wing Republicans and 2 centrist Democrats, if that. More often they count the host as a liberal, even if he/she is going to bend over backwards (i.e. be biased conservative) to counter that image.

Having gone through years and years of Orthodox Jewish schooling, I sort of *am* an expert, and I assure you, it's literally as simple as the man writing a divorce decree on a piece of paper and giving it to her, with or without her consent.My bad. I was quite unaware of this.

Just because you say right-wingers "aren't supposed" to do something doesn't mean they don't do it.Under some semantic rules, it means they aren't really right-wingers. Not that you have to accept those rules. It just feels weird to lump a bunch of polygamist welfare mothers in with the right, when the right has spent so much time (and been kicked around so much in popular culture for) decrying welfare and non-monogamous families.

I won't have to time to respond to everything else in your last post for a couple of hours.

Under some semantic rules, it means they aren't really right-wingers. Not that you have to accept those rules. It just feels weird to lump a bunch of polygamist welfare mothers in with the right, when the right has spent so much time (and been kicked around so much in popular culture for) decrying welfare and non-monogamous families.They're more of the social/religious right than the economic right, obviously. I'm quite skeptical though that if they were not personally benefiting from exploiting the system that they would support welfare. Supporting welfare when you collect it no more makes you a leftist than opposing the death penalty while sitting on death row does.

I don't see how the rest of the paragraph explains (let alone proves) the first sentence.By "pre-multicult", I meant, the options people typically thought were reasonable before multicult ideas took over education and the press.

It seems to me that forcing people to assimilate has more in common with socialism (in practice) than accepting and/or celebrating differences does.Agreed. Not many people advocate forcing anyone to assimilate any more, thank goodness.

Isn't multicult (as you call it) a fundamentally libertarian idea?Multicult is quite anti-libertarian; hard to gauge multiculturalism because it isn't really put into practice. Multiculturalism is the way they claim to be; multicult is the way they are. In Hesperado terms, multiculturalists say, "Thou Shalt Never Say Any Culture is Better or Worse Than Any Other Culture." Multicultists say, "Thou Shalt Always Say That Western Culture—Particularly American Culture—is Worse Than Non-Western Cultures."

I was referring to your line "every dispute is decided according its victimhood heirarchy." That's a clear straw man.If it is a strawman, then explain how the media (and the prosecutors they puppet) treat hate crimes (great thread at Kvetcher on this. The attack on Crystal Gail Mangum was treated as a hate crime, even though it didn't happen, while the attacks on Jan and Quiana Pietrzak are treated by the media as economically motivated, even though they involved rape.

I would say that multiculturalism is a subset of pluralism.On that we disagree.

Who says that various cultures have historically made equal contributions? This is another straw man.I wasn't trying to quote anyone. I was trying to sum up the strategy with which multicult looks at history. It won't look like a strategy if you treat thing as isolated - it's a matter of opinion whether it's a strategy or not. More about that later.

Here's an exercise: compare and contrast the way the media talk about religious believers with how they talk about UFO believers. Or how they fawn over the pope.I don't know how UFO believers are treated by the press per se. Fictional UFO believer characters are often portrayed fairly positively. Religious believers are usually treated with respect, though a lot of religions are pretty much ignored.

Pat Buchannan gets to be a regular guest, but you'll virtually never see Noam Chomsky. Why is that? In the run-up to the Iraq war, pro-war voices were featured prominently, while anti-war voices were not featured at all or were characterized as "far left."I don't get it. Was Pat Buchanan characterized as "far left" or "pro-war"?

Chomsky, like a lot of professor types, isn't particularly telegenic. I can't think of a centrist or rightist equivalent to him who gets featured a lot. There do seem to be leftist and centrist equivalent to Pat Buchanan, like Michael Kinsley, but I haven't watched TV in like six years (minus a 2008 Pres debate).

Who says that various cultures have historically made equal contributions? This is another straw man.Why was the word "discover" redefined to exclude what Christopher Columbus did in 1492? In no other context does it exclude people who have found things known to someone else somewhere; the multicultists don't get angry when someone says "I discovered an ATM close to my house".

Why was the word "native" redefined to exclude white people born in the United States? In no other context does it mean "descended from the earliest known inhabitants".

What fraction of New Mexico's population was non-Hispanic white in 1900 or 1950? What fraction do most multicult-educated people think it was? If they knew, do you think they would continue talking about the possibility of "giving it back to the Mexicans"?

What do you think the term "African slavery" means to most people? How about "European slavery? Probably the same thing: slavery perpetrated by Western Europeans against West Africans.

When I talk about slavery perpetrated by North African against Southern Europeans, I get three responses:"That never happened." (I then provide the sources.)"That happened, but the number of Europeans enslaved was quite small." (I then provide the numbers.)"You think about this too much."Those assertions aren't all the same. Together, don't they form three lines of defense? Defense of what?

Defense of the Ninth Commandment of Multicult: The insinuated idea that Western Culture is Worse than Non-Western Culture.

Why is the notion of great, peaceful, ancient, sub-Saharan African civilizations never challenged in the multicult? Keep in mind that these are asserted exist when white people were crawling around in the caves of Europe. (That's as close to a direct quote as I can get.) Why do people know so little about these civilizations other than that they were vastly, far-and-away, incomparably greater than Europe? Why do people have so much trouble placing these civilizations in time and space?

Why are multicultists so unashamed about proclaiming their knowledge about these civilizations when they cannot even name them? Come on folks, are we talking about the Ashanti Empire? The Zulus? Ancient Egypt? The Central African Empire?

The vagueness is intentional. The multicult is conflating:(a) an ancient North African civilization - Egypt - which certainly was great, though with its Greco-Semitic character it was hardly "non-Western";(b) some medieval North African civilizations - the Saracen Empires - which were also great in both power and cultural contributions, though they were neither ancient, nor black, nor innocent of the crimes multiculturalists are supposed to hate the most (imperialism, militarism, and slavery);(c) some important African civilizations - e.g. the Ghana and Ashanti Empires - which I suppose are best characterized as "Saharan" or "upper sub-Saharan", which were quite important though not really sources of lasting cultural contributions, and also not paragons of multicultural innocence;(d) a sub-Saharan Empire - the Zulus - which was quite formidable at its peak but which existed well after the Renaissance, and which again was quite the opposite of multicultural or peaceful;(e) the fact that there were people living in sub-Saharan Africa in ancient times, and we don't know as much about them as we'd like.

In Hesperado terms, multiculturalists say, "Thou Shalt Never Say Any Culture is Better or Worse Than Any Other Culture." Multicultists say, "Thou Shalt Always Say That Western Culture—Particularly American Culture—is Worse Than Non-Western Cultures."

But people don't actually say either of those things! This is a total strawman or caricature of multiculturalism.

If it is a strawman, then explain how the media (and the prosecutors they puppet) treat hate crimes (great thread at Kvetcher on this. The attack on Crystal Gail Mangum was treated as a hate crime, even though it didn't happen, while the attacks on Jan and Quiana Pietrzak are treated by the media as economically motivated, even though they involved rape.

The Duke case was something of a man-bites-dog story. I'm not familiar with the other one.

I wasn't trying to quote anyone. I was trying to sum up the strategy with which multicult looks at history. It won't look like a strategy if you treat thing as isolated - it's a matter of opinion whether it's a strategy or not. More about that later.

Okay, my opinion is, it's not.

I don't know how UFO believers are treated by the press per se. Fictional UFO believer characters are often portrayed fairly positively. Religious believers are usually treated with respect, though a lot of religions are pretty much ignored.

UFO believers are treated as cranks. Religious believers are treated as reasonable people.

I don't get it. Was Pat Buchanan characterized as "far left" or "pro-war"?

Ok, congrats. You found the one exception. Far right commentators were allowed to be anti-war.

Chomsky, like a lot of professor types, isn't particularly telegenic.

And Buchannan is?? Newt Gingrich is a looker? Haven't you ever heard that politics is Hollywood for ugly people?

I can't think of a centrist or rightist equivalent to him who gets featured a lot. There do seem to be leftist and centrist equivalent to Pat Buchanan, like Michael Kinsley, but I haven't watched TV in like six years (minus a 2008 Pres debate).

Chomsky is no further left than Buchannan is right.

Why was the word "discover" redefined to exclude what Christopher Columbus did in 1492? In no other context does it exclude people who have found things known to someone else somewhere; the multicultists don't get angry when someone says "I discovered an ATM close to my house".

If you planted a flag and declared the ATM your property because you "discovered" it, the "multicultists" might indeed get angry.

Why was the word "native" redefined to exclude white people born in the United States? In no other context does it mean "descended from the earliest known inhabitants".

Doesn't seem like a redefinition to me, although it is a bit awkward, I agree. Not sure what that has to do with anything, though.

What fraction of New Mexico's population was non-Hispanic white in 1900 or 1950? What fraction do most multicult-educated people think it was? If they knew, do you think they would continue talking about the possibility of "giving it back to the Mexicans"?

Um, what? 1) Who, specifically, talks about "giving it back to the Mexicans?" 2) Why are you choosing 1900 or 1950? 3) Mexico used to own New Mexico, so what does "giving it back" have to do with demographics in 1900 or 1950?

What do you think the term "African slavery" means to most people? How about "European slavery? Probably the same thing: slavery perpetrated by Western Europeans against West Africans.

I'd have to ask for clarification if I heard either term. Not sure what your point is.

When I talk about slavery perpetrated by North African against Southern Europeans, I get three responses: "That never happened." (I then provide the sources.) "That happened, but the number of Europeans enslaved was quite small." (I then provide the numbers.) "You think about this too much." Those assertions aren't all the same. Together, don't they form three lines of defense? Defense of what?

I'm supposed to explain your argument? If you're trying to argue that the "multicults" are engaged in some sort of defense by coopting average Americans minds and coercing them into unwittingly defending something, you've got to make the case for that yourself.

Defense of the Ninth Commandment of Multicult: The insinuated idea that Western Culture is Worse than Non-Western Culture.

Wow, it sure is easy to make fun of and criticize an ideology when you get to just make shit up.

Why is the notion of great, peaceful, ancient, sub-Saharan African civilizations never challenged in the multicult?

WTF? I've never even heard of a great, ancient sub-Saharan African civilization.

Keep in mind that these are asserted exist when white people were crawling around in the caves of Europe. (That's as close to a direct quote as I can get.) Why do people know so little about these civilizations other than that they were vastly, far-and-away, incomparably greater than Europe? Why do people have so much trouble placing these civilizations in time and space?

Look, you can't just keep making vague claims and attributing them to no specific person while holding "multicultists" as a whole responsible. How am I supposed to argue with that?

Why are multicultists so unashamed about proclaiming their knowledge about these civilizations when they cannot even name them? Come on folks, are we talking about the Ashanti Empire? The Zulus? Ancient Egypt? The Central African Empire?

Frankly, I don't know WHAT you're talking about.

The vagueness is intentional.

By whom?

The multicult is conflating: (a) an ancient North African civilization - Egypt - which certainly was great, though with its Greco-Semitic character it was hardly "non-Western"; (b) some medieval North African civilizations - the Saracen Empires - which were also great in both power and cultural contributions, though they were neither ancient, nor black, nor innocent of the crimes multiculturalists are supposed to hate the most (imperialism, militarism, and slavery); (c) some important African civilizations - e.g. the Ghana and Ashanti Empires - which I suppose are best characterized as "Saharan" or "upper sub-Saharan", which were quite important though not really sources of lasting cultural contributions, and also not paragons of multicultural innocence; (d) a sub-Saharan Empire - the Zulus - which was quite formidable at its peak but which existed well after the Renaissance, and which again was quite the opposite of multicultural or peaceful; (e) the fact that there were people living in sub-Saharan Africa in ancient times, and we don't know as much about them as we'd like.

If you say so. I've never heard this conflation outside of maybe a couple of a couple of references to women (by black women) looking like "Nubian princesses." I'm not sure it was intended as a history lesson.

In conclusion:

You're taking a list of random things you've heard by unnamed people and attributing them to a movement and then tarring that movement by them. By that logic, I can show you how idiotic conservatism is because I've (personally!) heard conservatives 1) deny evolution 2) question whether the Earth is round or flat 3) argue that FDR caused the Great Depression 4) say the Clintons had Vince Foster killed, etc. etc.

If you want to criticize an ideology, you have to criticize the ideology, not random unsourced statements that don't seem to have much to do with it.

And Buchannan is?? Newt Gingrich is a looker? Haven't you ever heard that politics is Hollywood for ugly people?Oh, sorry. I didn't really mean looks. I thought "telegenic" meant "smooth and glib on TV in situations where others will be rattled". People don't like listening to professorial types that much. I think professor-to-pundit is apples-to-oranges. I don't think they're equivalents. I won't talk about TV any more since I am way out of my depth ... for all I know Chomsky has a legion of groupies who think he's teh awsome.

If you planted a flag and declared the ATM your property because you "discovered" it, the "multicultists" might indeed get angry.People get angry about the use of the word "discover". They don't even need to go as far as talking about any flag-planting. Your experience may be different from mine.

Um, what? 1) Who, specifically, talks about "giving it back to the Mexicans?"Barry Mehler2) Why are you choosing 1900 or 1950? 3) Mexico used to own New Mexico, so what does "giving it back" have to do with demographics in 1900 or 1950?People support it because they think it was a bustling vibrant area, highly developed, filled with Mexicans. Just my opinion.

I'd have to ask for clarification if I heard either term. Not sure what your point is.Did you write that before you read my next couple of paragraphs? If, in the history of slavery, there was a bunch of slavery perpetrated by Europeans against Africans, and a bunch perpetrated by Africans against Europeans, and everyone has heard of the former but not the latter, what do you think that is evidence of? I call it "multicult".

I'm supposed to explain your argument?Now that time, I think you did write that before my next paragraph.

Wow, it sure is easy to make fun of and criticize an ideology when you get to just make shit up.I did, indeed, make up the term. (Hesperado calls it "PC multiculturalism", which is okay too but I like the shorter term "multicult".)

I did not make up the examples, although a lot of them happened face-to-face (me without my tape recorder!) so I suppose you don't have to believe me. In fact, I'm not sure if it's that you don't believe my examples or you don't see the pattern, or both.

WTF? I've never even heard of a great, ancient sub-Saharan African civilization.By name? Neither have I. I've just heard it reasserted that they existed. I surmise that you didn't study a social science at an overrated university filled with unpleasant loud people shrieking that "ignorant white people can't understand!" whatever issue is at hand. If so, I envy you.

Look, you can't just keep making vague claims and attributing them to no specific person while holding "multicultists" as a whole responsible.

I wish I had studied at CCNY under Jeffries. Instead, I studied under a bunch of nobodies, mostly whose names I have forgotten. But I'm not saying these opinion lie mainly in college faculties - much more than that they lie in college graduates. They aren't even public figures; if I remembered their names I wouldn't tell you anyway.

Multicultists as a whole responsible? I've defined them to be responsible. Obviously if no one holds these opinions then the term is no more valid than "unicorn" or "hippogrif". And Mary Lefkowitz's book would be about opinions held by nobody. So, either you reclassify Lefkowitz next to JK Rowling or you accept that these beliefs exist.

How am I supposed to argue with that?I don't know if it's a good idea to be arguing against someone's personal experiences in the first place. I had assumed you were aware of the opinions the less-savory characters on the left hold.

By whom?Some of your comments seem more like heckling than anything else. You seem pretty irritated.

If you say so. I've never heard this conflation outside of maybe a couple of a couple of references to women (by black women) looking like "Nubian princesses." I'm not sure it was intended as a history lesson.Okay, so maybe you haven't head assertions that, or debunkings of, "Cleopatra was black? Why are there so many sites debunking what so few people are asserting?

You're taking a list of random things you've heard by unnamed people and attributing them to a movement and then tarring that movement by them.I don't think they're random. The people I'm talking about have something in common, they are part of a category. I have named that category. It is responsible for a ton of misconceptions which underlie modern leftism.

By that logic, I can show you how idiotic conservatism is because I've (personally!) heard conservatives...I guess you can ... you've been noting their similarities to Islamic extremists for a while so I know you have pretty low opinions of them. It would be better, though, if you picked a narrower word than conservative. You could even make up your own word. Call them "clamservatives" because people who think a guy elected in 1932 could have caused a depression in 1929 have the brains of a clam.

If you did that I wouldn't really object ... we've all met dopes of several ideologies and it's good to have a term for them. I just don't think "multicult" is the equivalent of "conservative".

If you want to criticize an ideology, you have to criticize the ideology, not random unsourced statements that don't seem to have much to do with it.If it's not already clear, I left the statements unsourced because (a) I figured you were familiar with the public figures who have made them (as I linked above) and (b) because a lot of the opinion are drawn from people I know personally, who aren't citable.

I drew a strict distinction between multicults and multiculturalists a few paragraphs ago, just as I draw a strict distinction between neocons and conservatives and clamservatives. If you deny the legitimacy of that distinction, then yeah, whenever I criticize dumb multicultural wannabes I guess "I'm" criticizing intelligent pluralists with a clear sense of history.

Cultural pluralism (close kin to “multiculturalism”) vitally depends on the idea that no culture is better than another.

That's obviously not true. Show me a single multiculturalist that says hippie culture is no better than Nazi culture.

(As to the second, people mostly think it. I should have been more clear.)

You don't know what people think.

I didn't really mean looks. I thought "telegenic" meant "smooth and glib on TV in situations where others will be rattled". People don't like listening to professorial types that much. I think professor-to-pundit is apples-to-oranges. I don't think they're equivalents. I won't talk about TV any more since I am way out of my depth ... for all I know Chomsky has a legion of groupies who think he's teh awsome.

Okay, actually I see what you're saying now and I agree. It's a bias we haven't yet spelled out: the bias towards soundbites. Chomsky does not compress well at all, nor does most reasoned discourse. What works are slogans, generalities, and sloppy analogies.

That's the genius of Obama, by the way. (And B Clinton before him.) They have the gift of turning traditionally long-winded liberal arguments into great soundbites. Yes, "Hope and change" is trite and meaningless, but it works a hell a lot better than "social security lockbox," right? Reagan was also great at it on the other side.

(I think the reason the Republicans are in such a bad way now is that the Republican base actually started believing the slogans ("liberals hate America!" "terrorism is the greatest threat we've ever faced!" "they hate us for our freedoms!") rather than the purpose of the slogans. Let's hope that doesn't happen to the Dems.)

People get angry about the use of the word "discover". They don't even need to go as far as talking about any flag-planting. Your experience may be different from mine.

You must admit there was a certain arrogance about the way Westerners used to talk about Columbus "discovering" America. Don't nitpick the semantics of it. The gist was that no "real" people knew about America. Maybe some people you know have taken it too far in the other direction, I don't know.

Barry Mehler

Who the f is Barry Mehler and why is he significant enough to represent an entire ideology?

People support it because they think it was a bustling vibrant area, highly developed, filled with Mexicans. Just my opinion.

Again, you're just assuming you know what people are thinking. That's not exactly an air-tight argument.

If, in the history of slavery, there was a bunch of slavery perpetrated by Europeans against Africans, and a bunch perpetrated by Africans against Europeans, and everyone has heard of the former but not the latter, what do you think that is evidence of? I call it "multicult".

I call it Americans being more familiar with American history than with African history.

I did, indeed, make up the term. (Hesperado calls it "PC multiculturalism", which is okay too but I like the shorter term "multicult".)

I mean, it's easy to make up an ideology and then tear it apart. If people don't actually hold that ideology, what's the point? And why name it something similar to an actual ideology if not to smear the latter?

I did not make up the examples, although a lot of them happened face-to-face (me without my tape recorder!) so I suppose you don't have to believe me. In fact, I'm not sure if it's that you don't believe my examples or you don't see the pattern, or both.

I'm sure you've heard idiotic things from supporters of multiculturalism. It doesn't follow though that multiculturalism itself is idiotic. No ideology could stand up if judged based on the stupidest people who espouse it.

By name? Neither have I. I've just heard it reasserted that they existed. I surmise that you didn't study a social science at an overrated university filled with unpleasant loud people shrieking that "ignorant white people can't understand!" whatever issue is at hand. If so, I envy you.

No, I didn't. I was a computer science major. I did take Intro to Sociology and thought it was completely idiotic, for what it's worth.

I wish I had studied at CCNY under Jeffries. Instead, I studied under a bunch of nobodies, mostly whose names I have forgotten. But I'm not saying these opinion lie mainly in college faculties - much more than that they lie in college graduates. They aren't even public figures; if I remembered their names I wouldn't tell you anyway.

Okay, some college professors you know of have said some idiotic things. So what?

Multicultists as a whole responsible? I've defined them to be responsible. Obviously if no one holds these opinions then the term is no more valid than "unicorn" or "hippogrif". And Mary Lefkowitz's book would be about opinions held by nobody. So, either you reclassify Lefkowitz next to JK Rowling or you accept that these beliefs exist.

I'm not arguing that these beliefs don't exist. I'm just saying that they don't invalidate other, reasonable beliefs that go under the same label.

I don't know if it's a good idea to be arguing against someone's personal experiences in the first place. I had assumed you were aware of the opinions the less-savory characters on the left hold.

I didn't realize you were just trying to say that there are less-savory characters on the left with wacky ideas. I wouldn't argue with that.

By whom? Some of your comments seem more like heckling than anything else. You seem pretty irritated.

No, I'm not irritated. I love a good discussion with people with different ideologies. I asked "by whom?" because you appeared to be attributing a deliberate misinformation campaign to some unspecified persons. ("The vagueness is intentional.")

Okay, so maybe you haven't head assertions that, or debunkings of, "Cleopatra was black? Why are there so many sites debunking what so few people are asserting?

When did I say that nobody asserted Cleopatra was black?

The people I'm talking about have something in common, they are part of a category. I have named that category. It is responsible for a ton of misconceptions which underlie modern leftism.

But you could do the same thing with literally any ideology on Earth? How does it make sense to judge an ideology based on its dumbest or most ignorant adherents??

I guess you can ... you've been noting their similarities to Islamic extremists for a while so I know you have pretty low opinions of them. It would be better, though, if you picked a narrower word than conservative. You could even make up your own word. Call them "clamservatives" because people who think a guy elected in 1932 could have caused a depression in 1929 have the brains of a clam.

If you did that I wouldn't really object ... we've all met dopes of several ideologies and it's good to have a term for them. I just don't think "multicult" is the equivalent of "conservative".

Why not? I'd say that as a percentage, there are at least as many dopes among conservatives as there are among multiculturalists, and probably more. Hell, 2/3s of Republicans don't believe in evolution! (That's from Gallup polls.)

I drew a strict distinction between multicults and multiculturalists a few paragraphs ago, just as I draw a strict distinction between neocons and conservatives and clamservatives. If you deny the legitimacy of that distinction, then yeah, whenever I criticize dumb multicultural wannabes I guess "I'm" criticizing intelligent pluralists with a clear sense of history.

Now you're being a little disingenuous. Is "multicult" an idiotic ideology held by some people you've come across and a few public figures like you're now implying? Or is it vast and all-encompassing in Western liberalism and in the media, as you implied upthread?

If you want to mock idiots for being idiots, fine, but you can't smear "the left" or "the media" as "multicults" and then proceed to judge "multicults" based on some idiots you've come across in your life and readings. I don't think "the left" or "the media" pretend that there were vast civilizations in ancient Africa or that the most victimized is always right, but you're implying they do.

That's obviously not true. Show me a single multiculturalist that says hippie culture is no better than Nazi culture.

You're arguing with a link I supplied. It asserts something that you said no one asserts.

You don't know what people think."Socialist" doesn't mean to people who accept that label upon themselves what you mean when you use it.

You must admit there was a certain arrogance about the way Westerners used to talk about Columbus "discovering" America. Don't nitpick the semantics of it. The gist was that no "real" people knew about America.

Maybe someone has been arrogant about this in the past; I certainly never noticed the gist that you did. My focus has been errors in others' current thinking about history. Others nitpick the semantics of "discover" and I have responded.

I mean, it's easy to make up an ideology and then tear it apart.

Okay, so after the links I've given you, you regard this as an ideology I've made up, not merely named.

If people don't actually hold that ideology, what's the point?

A big "if".

And why name it something similar to an actual ideology if not to smear the latter?

I would just be repeating myself. We obviously have an intractable difference of opinion on this.

Okay, some college professors you know of have said some idiotic things. So what?

I believe they have a role in shaping the pattern of erroneous beliefs that people hold about history. There's not much to discuss here; I consider it a pattern and you don't. I consider the beliefs common and I guess you don't.

I'm just saying that they don't invalidate other, reasonable beliefs that go under the same label.

Or rather, a label you consider excessively similar. The way some conservatives consider "neoconservative" to be too similar. I throw them a bone by truncating the latter to "neocon", partly because the latter remind me of con artists.

I didn't realize you were just trying to say that there are less-savory characters on the left with wacky ideas. I wouldn't argue with that.

Sorry.

No, I'm not irritated. I love a good discussion with people with different ideologies.

I read you wrong. I'm not perfect at determining the author's mood from word choice.

When did I say that nobody asserted Cleopatra was black?

On first reading of the above question I immediately assumed you were familiar with "black Cleopatra" assertions. I'm probably wrong, but if not, having heard of "black Cleopatra" would represent part of the pattern of conflating sub-Saharan with North African civilization. If you don't see the pattern, it's another impasse.

But you could do the same thing with literally any ideology on Earth?

Absolutely, and I support this effort. The dumbest libertarians in the world - the one who think the police should be abolish since "they cause all the crime", should have a name to distinguish them from Murray Rothbard. Liberschmarians or something. The dumbest Communists I suppose are already called Lysenkoists. Etc. etc.

Now you're being a little disingenuous. Is "multicult" an idiotic ideology held by some people you've come across and a few public figures like you're now implying? Or is it vast and all-encompassing in Western liberalism and in the media, as you implied upthread?

Hard to assess its overall prevalence. Few public figures get caught saying things that prove they are multicult. Multicult is largely about not saying certain things (like "Muslims took a million white slaves over a period of 350 years"). Certainly the misconceptions created by multicult treatments of history are quite common. Without Gallup to back me up, I guess that you won't believe me.

I don't think "the left" or "the media" pretend that there were vast civilizations in ancient Africa or that the most victimized is always right, but you're implying they do.

I guess Jan and Quiana Pietrzak didn't. The obscurity of that crime is evidence for my case - that is why I mentioned that it was obscure.

Creating Understanding: A Handbook for Christian Communication Across Cultural Landscapes.

Hardly the multicult manifesto, whatever that might be.

I guess if you don't agree that the term is legitimate, it's just another impasse. I do regard Christianity as the ideological seed of multicult, though the former is often reasonable and the latter, rarely.

Maybe we can reach common ground. I'm prepared to agree to these statements.

1) Many people are ignorant of history.

2) At least a few professors who are liberal are also idiotic.

3) Some people like to exaggerate black African history and denigrate white European history. (I followed your link -- it looks like that "caves of Europe" thing was a Malcolm X line. So a black power type thing rather than a "multicult" type thing.)

As for using ideological labels to only smart members of that ideology, I'm afraid we'd end up with like 10 libertarians and just a handful of "real" conservatives. And who gets to decide?

I think ideas should be debated on the merits of the ideas and not on what the stupidest people to accept those ideas happen to believe.

As for the idea of multiculturalism, you wrote;

Cultural pluralism (close kin to “multiculturalism”) vitally depends on the idea that no culture is better than another.That is not true. It depends on the idea that various cultures can live together and maybe combine to form a greater whole. "No culture is better than another" is a caricature. Maybe you can find a line saying that in a few books or professors' mouths, but so what? It's obviously stupid and it's equally obvious that it's not remotely necessary for multiculturalism or "cultural pluralism."

I followed your link -- it looks like that "caves of Europe" thing was a Malcolm X line. So a black power type thing rather than a "multicult" type thing.

Well, the people I've heard in person repeating the phrase weren't black or Muslims, but they probably got it from them. (Most of the people I've seen wearing Malcolm X t-shirts weren't black either, and I'm sure racial separatism is anathema to them.)

That is not true. It depends on the idea that various cultures can live together and maybe combine to form a greater whole. "No culture is better than another" is a caricature.

Well maybe very few people really think that way, but I didn't make it up. It's from the link right before "ditto". Unfortunately I didn't separate them properly since the > tags have changed and I'm not used to the system.

Anyway, I think we've found our small area of common ground. Congrats on your engagement. (If you're engaged, I think that's what you meant but maybe you're in pre-engagement planning?)

“But criticism of the U.S. government should not be confused with an antipathy towards the U.S., let alone towards ‘the West.’“

No doubt that is a comforting fiction to some. Radicals are not radical because they reserve their critique to measured elements of Uncle Sam‘s foreign policy. No. Radicals reject branch and root. Edward Said, doyen of the radical left, became famous for outing a hapless Jane Austen as a closet imperialist.

“If critics of the U.S. and Muslims appear to be on the same page sometimes, it's only because the U.S. recently attacked two Muslim countries. (And because we have supported dictators in the Muslim world, etc.)”

[“But criticism of the U.S. government should not be confused with an antipathy towards the U.S., let alone towards ‘the West.’“]

No doubt that is a comforting fiction to some. Radicals are not radical because they reserve their critique to measured elements of Uncle Sam‘s foreign policy.I wasn't talking about radicals. I was talking about normal people who criticize the U.S. government and are smeared by the right as "anti-American."

Right. Radical Islamists killed Theo van Gogh in the Netherlands because Kermit Roosevelt helped to unseat Mossedegh. ?! What's that got to do with what I said. I'm just pointing out that although a member of Al Qaeda in Iraq opposes the war and a member of the American left opposes the war, it doesn't mean they have anything in common.

It's not clear if socialism is an economic system any more. Post-1989 (earlier even), the traditional economic platform of socialism pretty much went into the trasher, leaving the left with an ill-defined cultural socialism.

Personally, as a life-long and card-carrying social democrat, I define socialism as the political philosophy that takes the side of the working classes (broadly defined) against the overreaching claims (note qualification) of the ownership and management classes. Thus I despise most American-style left-wing liberals as being essentially class warriors on behalf the SWPLs, a culturally dominant fragment of the manager class.

These days, genuine pro-working class politics are more easily found among paleocons than among left-liberals.

Immanuel has mentioned a pet peeve of mine - Iranian history. A few posts ago I was about to go off on a tirade about widespread misconceptions in this area, as part of my assembling the pattern of leftist-mediated historical errors. Allow me to elaborate on why this matters ... first I'll sum up the just-so story, then I'll throw it in the wood chipper, then I'll mention some "sitings", then I'll explain why it matters. The just-so story:

Once there was a democratically-elected President of Iran. Iran was a social democracy at the time, and like many social democracies, the democratically-elected government wanted to nationalize industry. Oil industry profits were being taken by us Americans. The democratically-elected government of Mossadegh nationalized the oil industry, so the CIA, controlled by the American right, overthrew him and installed the Shah. He ruled with an iron fist for many years with the support of the American right. This radicalized the people, who turned to violent Islamic extremism. It also demonstrates that America at the time was dead-set against all efforts by Middle Eastern leaders to nationalize strategic assets in their countries.

If you're not familiar with Iranian history, let me correct this point by point:Mossadegh wasn't president and he wasn't elected. Like most prime ministers, he was appointed in an environment where the head of state and the parliament shared power, and many PM choices were something of a compromise. He didn't nationalize the oil industry; it was nationalized by an act of Parliament before the Shah reluctantly made Mossadegh PM. The Shah was not installed by the US and not in the 50s; he came to the throne by hereditary right after his father was deposed by the Soviets and British. (The senior Pahlavi signed a treaty with the Bolsheviks that allowed them to do this.)America had taken zero of the oil profits up to this point. The event that precipitated the successful coup against Mossadegh was not the nationalization of the oil industry, but Mossadegh's attempt to wrest control of the army from Pahlavi, who had had power over that sphere since he became Shah in 1941.The Shah's iron-fisted rule did not begin until decades after the deposition of Mossadegh.Violent Islamic extremists were a force to be reckoned with before Mossadegh, before the oil nationalization - they killed the PM who served before the gent who served before Mossadegh.A year later, the same US President sided with the USSR to stop Anglo-French efforts to reverse Nasser's decision to nationalize the Suez Canal.

I did indeed make up the just-so version a way up the page. But note how similar it is to this one (third paragraph). This one is a little better, correctly identifying Mosaddeq as Prime Minister instead of President (but getting the sequence of event in the oil nationalization wrong, and completely failing to mention the decisions that Mosaddeq made that got him deposed). Here's another one, claiming Mossadegh was elected, also claiming that nationalizing the oil industry wasn't bad even for British interests.

Why does the just-so story matter? Because people believe it. But more than that, it matters because it is so freaking plausible to so many people. People hear the story and it doesn't need any looking up, because it confirms everything they believe about the West, particularly the United States.

So, who believes the just-so story? Who would believe a sentence as impressively riddled with falsehoods as, "Next was to topple democratically elected President of Iran, Mossadegh, who dared nationalize the main asset of Iran - OIL. Britain and USA worked together to put hand-picked candidate, a figure head - Shah Resa Pahlavi"? The American left, and the Islamic rank-and-file.

Cultural pluralism (close kin to “multiculturalism”) vitally depends on the idea that no culture is better than another.That is not true. It depends on the idea that various cultures can live together and maybe combine to form a greater whole. "No culture is better than another" is a caricature. Maybe you can find a line saying that in a few books or professors' mouths, but so what? It's obviously stupid and it's equally obvious that it's not remotely necessary for multiculturalism or "cultural pluralism."From Wikipedia:

"Most contemporary anthropologists subscribe to the methodologic and heuristic research principles established by Frank Boas et al. After the Second World War, when cultural relativism was popularized, Marcus and Fischer said it was misinterpreted 'more as a doctrine, or position, than as a method' of analysis, that it connoted every culture as separate and equal, and that every value system (however different) is equally valid, hence, the erroneous popular usage equating 'cultural relativism' to 'moral relativism'."

So it's not a caricature, JA, to claim that people say that "No culture is better than another." Rather, that is the widespread (i.e., popularized) understanding of the matter. (It's rather amazing that you haven't encountered this, ever, in your own life; it's absolutely pandemic, at least here in Toronto.) And that same attitude is highly inbred into the practical application of multiculturalism.

It doesn't follow though that multiculturalism itself is idiotic.In practice, encouraging immigrants and non-whites to take pride in their ancestral cultures (rather than assimilate) is a big part of multiculturalism. In that, the same ideology encourages them to draw harder boundaries between their own ethnic in-group, and the out-groups who aren't "like them."

In-groups always elevate their own morality and accomplishments, and denigrate the morality and achievements of their corresponding out-groups. It doesn't matter whether those group boundaries are drawn based on ethnic background, skin color, religion, fashion, beauty, or any of a thousand other potential criteria; this is just how human psychology works.

Also, regarding the pleasant idea that "Multiculturalism is just the belief that various cultures can make various contributions and that we can all learn to live together," this is again from Wikipedia:

"The term multiculturalism generally refers to a theory of racial, cultural and ethnic diversity that applies to the demographic make-up of a specific place, usually at the scale of an organization such as a school, business, neighborhood, city or nation."

"Some countries have official, or de jure policies of multiculturalism aimed at recognizing and allowing members of distinct groups within that society to celebrate and maintain their different cultures or cultural identities as a way to promote social cohesion. In this context, multiculturalism advocates a society that extends equitable status to distinct ethnic and religious groups, with no identifiable ethnical and/or religious culture treated as a single norm to which everyone has to adhere."

You combine that with cultural relativism, and it gets you exactly what Blode0322 has been trying to explain to you (without proper references). That is, you end up with a society that "extends equitable status to distinct ethnic and religious groups" whether they deserve it or not, and where equitable treatment of minorities is defined by equality of results, not by equality of opportunities.

There are many additional examples/criticisms of why multiculturalism doesn't work, here.

So it's not a caricature, JA, to claim that people say that "No culture is better than another." Rather, that is the widespread (i.e., popularized) understanding of the matter.

You've demonstrated that "No culture is better than another" is a common misunderstanding of what multiculturalism is, but not that people commonly believe that "no culture is better than another."

I think my example above makes this obvious: not the most die-hard liberal multiculturalist would argue that modern American culture is "no better" than Nazi culture. Yes, maybe some people will claim that "no culture is better than another" because they think they're supposed to think that, but when you get down to actual details, no way people believe it.

you end up with a society that "extends equitable status to distinct ethnic and religious groups" whether they deserve it or not.

That's not true, though. America, for example, grants "equitable status" to Muslim Americans in the sense that they are not treated as second-class citizens. However, it remains illegal to perform female circumcisions or to stone your daughter to death for committing adultery. We do make cultural judgments and say this culture is better than that culture in at least this respect.

and where equitable treatment of minorities is defined by equality of results, not by equality of opportunitiesThis is imprecise. Equality of opportunity is the goal. Equality of results is used to determine whether equality of opportunity has been achieved. Even a policy like affirmative action, which on the surface makes opportunity less equal, does so in an attempt to compensate for a perceived inequality in opportunity -- to "level the playing field."

Now obviously, it's possible to have equal opportunity and unequal results, as may now be the case with affirmative action, but failing to recognize when that is the case is not identical to prioritizing equal results over equal opportunity -- it's just a case of using a bad metric to attempt to achieve equality of opportunity.

That's not true, though. America, for example, grants "equitable status" to Muslim Americans in the sense that they are not treated as second-class citizens. However, it remains illegal to perform female circumcisions or to stone your daughter to death for committing adultery. We do make cultural judgments and say this culture is better than that culture in at least this respect.It remains illegal, for what it's worth. But in refusing to consider a limitation on Muslim immigration, haven't we assigned a sort of special cultural superpower on Muslims? The power to shed all the superficial=negative parts of their culture and keep only the deep=peaceful parts? What other than the contention that all cultures are equal makes us so dang certain, in the teeth of Islamic violence and the Koranic passages that support it, that the Muslim's true nature is peace and moderation?

A moderate Muslim, by definition, is someone who would never behead his wife in response to her attempts to divorce him. This allows a "no true Scotsman" shuffle wherein we just say, "Oops, sorry, that guy wasn't a moderate," without ever admitting that our mistakes in this regard invalidate our immigration policy. The whole thing makes me wish Ron G. would return to the thread. I assume he agrees that head-chopping is worse than socialism....

But in refusing to consider a limitation on Muslim immigration, haven't we assigned a sort of special cultural superpower on Muslims? The power to shed all the superficial=negative parts of their culture and keep only the deep=peaceful parts?.

Not that different from the bargain we make with most immigrants.

What other than the contention that all cultures are equal makes us so dang certain, in the teeth of Islamic violence and the Koranic passages that support it, that the Muslim's true nature is peace and moderation?

Oh I don't think Islam's "true" nature is peace and moderation, but neither is Christianity's or Judaism's. The God of the Old Testament ordered all sorts of genocide and slavery.

A moderate Muslim, by definition, is someone who would never behead his wife in response to her attempts to divorce him. This allows a "no true Scotsman" shuffle wherein we just say, "Oops, sorry, that guy wasn't a moderate," without ever admitting that our mistakes in this regard invalidate our immigration policy. The whole thing makes me wish Ron G. would return to the thread. I assume he agrees that head-chopping is worse than socialism.....

Even you must admit that guy is an exception, not the rule. The overwhelming majority of Muslim immigrants do not behead their wives... and plenty of Christian Americans kill their wives, too.

I also think that the best weapon against Muslims is to encourage them to assimilate and Westernize, not by force, because that does not work, but by letting cultural osmosis work. McDonalds and Hollywood are going to do a lot more to fight Islamic extremism than all the bombs and guns in the U.S. arsenal.

I agree, but I question the assumptions that it is equally different for Irish, Finnish, Iraqi, and Mexican immigrants to fit in.

I also think that the best weapon against Muslims is to encourage them to assimilate and Westernize, not by force, because that does not work, but by letting cultural osmosis work. McDonalds and Hollywood are going to do a lot more to fight Islamic extremism than all the bombs and guns in the U.S. arsenal.

I'm not really concerned with whether or not they change whether they shop. I don't think McDonalds and Hollywood are going to limit crime rates, encourage education, or limit the impulse to agitation for politico-economic spoils.

I agree, but I question the assumptions that it is equally different for Irish, Finnish, Iraqi, and Mexican immigrants to fit in.Obviously some cultures are farther from ours than others. Islam is farther than Catholicism for sure. But is it so far that the differences are irreconcilable? I don't think so.

I'm not really concerned with whether or not they change whether they shop. I don't think McDonalds and Hollywood are going to limit crime rates, encourage education, or limit the impulse to agitation for politico-economic spoils.

I think McDonalds and Hollywood ARE going to limit crime rates, encourage education, etc. Why? Because they create a Westernizing effect. Compare some young Muslim growing up in Afghanistan with no connection whatsoever to the West. All he learns is Islam, and maybe to kill the Jews and Americans. It's not too hard to convince him as a late teen to take up a weapon and do some killing.

But take that same kid and grow him up in a culture with McDonalds and Hollywood, and come 15 or 16 he's going to be like WTF who cares about Islam and infidels, I just want to live my life. Work my 9-5 and by a flat-screen t.v.

Hey! This is my first visit to your blog! We are a group of volunteers and starting a new project in a community in the same niche. Your blog provided us useful information to work on.You have done a wonderful job!

Profile

"The creation myth was the essential bond that held the tribe together. It provided its believers with a unique identity, commanded their fidelity, strengthened order, vouchsafed law, encouraged valor and sacrifice, and offered meaning to the cycles of life and death. No tribe could survive long without the meaning of its existence defined by a creation story. The option was to weaken, dissolve, and die." ~ E.O. Wilson